GEO (Govt Equalities office) quoting stonewall law

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

I wrote to my MP (topic for another thread but it's not yet come to a conclusion) on GRA reform and I also cc'd in the GEO, because I wanted them aware of my concerns.
It was a very balanced email I feel, focusing on women's needs for single sex spaces and potential impact on religious minorities.
I wasn't actually expecting a response, let alone one quoting the idea that single sex spaces are already self id?!

We have heard people’s concerns that progressing the rights of transgender people should not have a detrimental effect on the rights of others, especially women. The maintenance of single-sex spaces is governed by the Equality Act 2010, and is separate to the GRA. The Equality Act allows people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to use single-sex spaces in their acquired gender, regardless of whether they have a Gender Recgonition Certificate or not, and to only be excluded where it is necessary and proportionate. Therefore, any proposals to the GRA would have no impact on transgender people being able to access single-sex spaces.

We agree that maintaining access to single-sex spaces is important and can sometimes help keep vulnerable women, in particular, safe. Some stakeholders have highlighted a desire for greater clarity from the Government about the law and guidance on single-sex spaces. We are looking into whether we should provide greater clarity in this area. This does not mean the government will be rolling back transgender rights. The Government was very clear from the outset that the Equality Act and its exceptions would not be amended as part of any changes to the GRA.

Does not bode well for the GRA reform I feel if they think single sex spaces can already be mixed sex without a GRC.

The EHRC has already admitted they have been misleading everyone on the EA,. The GEO have stuck to their guns, but it will all come out in Ann Sinnott’s judicial review.

We can’t link to the crowdfunder that outlines the admission by EHRC, but this is a really useful article by Sinnott, covering the issue:

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-2010-equality-act-is-being-undermined-by-official-guidance/

Essentially, the GEO is wrong.

The thing is, you need a valid reason to have single sex provision as it is. You can't have it otherwise, because it's discriminatory against the other sex. That's why jobs for women only cite the exception that allows them to be so, and why creating all women shortlists for winnable Parliamentary seats required a specific law.

If you say women can only have single sex spaces where necessary, and you also say that trans people can only be prevented from accessing those spaces when necessary, then surely that's the same overlap? It's just nonsensical to say on the one hand that single sex spaces are important, and must be respected and protected, and on the other that only those which are important may be retained. We've already agreed on that. It's been the law for fifty years.

If you can lawfully exclude on the grounds that sex is relevant (fairness, safety, dignity, privacy), then how does gender ID make it irrelevant? It's the same overlap. If you concede that it's not relevant, then you've conceded that that particular branch of single sex provision isn't relevant, either.

This isn't what Liz Truss has said twice in public statements.

to only be excluded where it is necessary and proportionate

This is the crux, isn't it? A proper, clear, enforceable and understood and accepted definition of 'necessary and proportionate'.

I would say women not wanting males in their space is 'necessary and proportionate', but I guess nto everyone agress.

not everyone agrees gah, typing fail

If they are single sex spaces then only men with a GRC can enter and even they can be excluded where proportionate. Without a GRC they are legally males and have no right to female spaces. If there wasn’t a proportionate need for a female space then the alternative is a mixed sex space not a single sex space that allows some men to enter.

A perfect example of what Ann Sinnott is saying about the government giving out false information about the Equality Act. The GEO cannot be unaware of this. They must be deliberately misleading people. This gets worse and worse.

Come on everyone, let’s make sure Ann’s crowdjustice fund allows her to get a judicial review.

They are deliberately misleading people or employing idiots. Possibly both. The EA itself does not give any special rights to people with the flimsily defined protected characteristic of gender reassignment to access the single sex spaces of the opposite sex, but there has been massive scope creep for TRAs since 2009 when it was drafted. Sex and gender reassignment are different protected characteristics.

That special access to female spaces (over and above other males) that they are constantly claiming was granted by the EA 2010 has never been part of the legislation.

I would say women not wanting males in their space is 'necessary and proportionate'

So would I.

if they think single sex spaces can already be mixed sex without a GRC.

They can be, it's up to the providers. But they can also be single sex, and they're implying that's unlawful.

Incompetent and lazy civil servants. Ditto the government for not dealing with these issues much earlier.